Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive???

[daddyjames]

• Quote

Post by daddyjames » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:24 pm

Cat

The only exception I have to what you original post is that it is a "valid" alternative.

This is not true.

As any "theory of creationism" is not testable - no experiment can be designed to provide scientific evidence of a "creator" by direct or indirect measurements or observations, therefore no evidence can be collected to support or refute any hypothesis generated from the theory. Because creationism is not testable, it is classified as "beliefs" and require "faith" in any proposed explanations.

Thus, any "theory of creationism" falls outside of the realm of science and the scientific method. And evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive of one another.

[jinx25]

• Quote

Post by jinx25 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:14 pm

Maybe you missed reality- a fish bringing forth anything but a fish-HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Neodarwinian HYPOTHESIS =pseudoscience.

[Cat]

Re:

• Quote

Post by Cat » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:26 pm

As any "theory of creationism" is not testable - no experiment can be designed to provide scientific evidence of a "creator" by direct or indirect measurements or observations, therefore no evidence can be collected to support or refute any hypothesis generated from the theory. Because creationism is not testable, it is classified as "beliefs" and require "faith" in any proposed explanations.

Thus, any "theory of creationism" falls outside of the realm of science and the scientific method. And evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive of one another.

I agree with most of the first part, except it should read "theory of creation" instead. That way creation via evolution would be accounted for in the same paragraph and, thus, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive.

While molecular evolution is established fact, creation of any life form via evolution is untestable theory (just as creationism).

[jinx25]

• Quote

Post by jinx25 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:12 am

Cat do you believe the genetic code, DNA trancription and translation, DNA repair enzymes came from non living matter, through natural processes? If anyone does i admire their religious faith. Spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is scientifically impossible.

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:36 am

Floating Dad is more possible?

[Luxorien]

• Quote

Post by Luxorien » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:00 pm

For information about this issue, I recommend Darwin's God by my boi, Kenneth Miller.

[Cat]

Re:

• Quote

Post by Cat » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:41 am

Cat do you believe the genetic code, DNA trancription and translation, DNA repair enzymes came from non living matter, through natural processes? If anyone does i admire their religious faith. Spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is scientifically impossible.

Actually, if you want my personal (unprovable) unjustified by anything belief, then it’s neither theory. I believe that everything in nature (and in universe) is recycled. Thus, live matter would be recycled as well. I am unable to believe that something came out of nothing without having any evidence to support that.

[riceke]

Re: Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive???

• Quote

Post by riceke » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:01 pm

What is meant by Genesis quote 'And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...'
Us, is there more than one God? If not who is the US and are they supreme? And is the title Lord God mean the one God (Lord) over the other Gods? Sort of the chief God?

[AstraSequi]

• Quote

Post by AstraSequi » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:15 am

You seem to be already familiar with the data - you would have to be, if you're drawing conclusions from it. Why don't you first describe your understanding of what the data is?

[wildfunguy]

• Quote

Post by wildfunguy » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:13 am

Evolution can be tested directly through controlled experiments. In contrast, our evolutionary history cannot be tested directly through controlled experiments since it is a matter of history, not nature. However, we can still collect evidence for our evolutionary history, just as a detective can collect evidence for someone's guilt. This is still empiricism.

Although creationism is incompatible with science, it is not incompatible with evolution or our ideas about evolutionary history. One could accept abiogenesis yet still believe that some god was directing things all along. They could believe that the random mutations weren't actually random at all. Indeed, "random" basically means "without a known cause." Such ideas would still be creationism.
To be fair, people who think they are scientifically testing creationism (Intelligent Design) aren't actually testing creationism at all. Rather, they are attempting to falsify the evolution-based explanations in an attempt to force us into accepting creationism as the only reasonable alternative. However, although the details of specific creation myths make them falsifiable, ceationism in the broad sense cannot be verified or falsified.

[wildfunguy]

Re:

• Quote

Post by wildfunguy » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:07 am

Indeed, "random" basically means "without a known cause."

By this I just meant that we can't predict exactly when some specific mutation will occur. Although I'm new to biology, I think this is correct, and where ever there is unpredictability, there is room for outside interference.

I found the term for people who reconcile evolution and creationism. They're "theistic evolutionists."

[Luxorien]

Re: Re:

• Quote

Post by Luxorien » Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:55 am

I found the term for people who reconcile evolution and creationism. They're "theistic evolutionists."

Represent!